3 ms·
Ask HN: Can I legally work on my startup during my paternity leave?
I'm on paternity leave from my day job. I've already been spending nights and weekends on my startup prior to having the baby. I'll have more time to spend on the startup (between dirty diapers and puke) and would naturally spend some of that on the startup.
Realistically, what are the pros or cons of doing this?
I'm in the state of California and using FML and PFML (both state benefits).
- mathgladiator 16y agoThat depends on your employee agreement. Do you have an IP agreement? If you do, then there may be rules on what you need to do. If I recall correctly, leaves are basically employment pauses to protect people for the reason of the leave (i.e. if you get fired when you return, then you can sue).
- caniparent 16y agoI don't recall the specifics of the employee agreement except that I can't hire former coworkers after leaving. I disclosed IP from this startup prior to joining.
- hga 16y agoRecent California law says they can't lay claim to what you do on your own time with your own materials (this has been discussed in prior HN threads and it's only a few decades old vs. the anti-non-compete law which as I recall is around a century old). I would suspect paternity leave counts as "your own time", particularly given the issue of trying to account for the 24x7 taking care of the baby labor, which what you're getting paid time off to do if I'm matching PFML correctly to the California Paid Family Leave, but IANAL. Still, it's hard to see California not being friendly towards what you're thinking about doing (says someone who's spend less than a total of 2 months in the state...).
- byoung2 16y agoThere was a case between Mattel and MGA over the Bratz doll line. Apparently the designer Carter Bryant worked for Mattel between 1995-1998, took family leave from April 1998 - January 1999 to take care of a sick relative. It was during this time that he claimed he developed the Bratz doll concept. He then resumed working for Mattel until 2000. After leaving Mattel, he joined MGA Entertainment, who made the doll line and sold a billion dollars worth of merchandise. Mattel originally claimed that they owned the doll line because he was still employed during the leave (though it was later determined that he drew the initial concepts before the leave, and now Mattel owns the rights to the Bratz line).
- caniparent 16y agoI'll look this up. Much thanks.
- hga 16y agoVery clearly the protections in Sections 2780-2782 of California law (see link in other posting) would not apply to this case, as the doll line was "Relate[ed] at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business." BTW, a quick skim of the Wikipedia article on the contrariety indicated it's not entirely settled and one of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment. A very messy case, but a good warning to be careful about these sorts of things just in case your startup is a really big hit.
- byoung2 16y agoone of the issues was if the designer was truly employed by Mattel between what was claimed as two separate periods of employment I remember during the case this was a big issue...did the leave of absence and subsequent return constitute a termination of employment and reinstatement. At first Mattel argued that he continued to be an employee, and therefore they owned the designs. Bryant went to work for Mattel in 1995 as a designer of fashions, hairstyles and makeup for its Barbie line. While at Mattel, he signed a "confidential information and inventions" agreement which gave Mattel the exclusive rights to all "developments, designs, know-how, data" and other items created by Bryant while he worked for the company. However, Bryant took a leave of absence in 1998 and returned to Mattel approximately 8 months later. It is during that critical time frame that Bryant contends he created "Bratz". http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/blogs/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/archive/2008/06/19/Barbie-v.-Bratz_3A00_-Copyright-Litigation-Gets-_1C20_Dolled-Up_1D20_.aspx http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/b... I believe they later agreed that there were indeed two separate periods of employment, but that the designs were still Mattel's because he came up with the ideas while at Mattel, and later sketched them during the leave. Furthermore, it was later revealed that he had used Mattel company time and resources to develop the idea after he returned from leave, including asking coworkers to help create a prototype, and using the phone and fax to make deals with MGA (http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll-designers-100-million-dollar-mistakes/ http://www.iplawforstartups.com/startup-launch-bratz-doll-de...).
- caniparent 16y agoThanks. If you have a link to the law you're talking about then I'd like to have a read. I haven't been able to find much with my Googling.
- hga 16y agoYou're welcome; a search on this site came up with: http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/lab/2870-2872.html http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/lab/2870-2872.ht...
- caniparent 16y agoPerfect, thanks!
- hga 16y agoBut be sure and check the case law if you're at all an edge case. This is the sort of law where it will really matter.
- sahillavingia 16y agoAsk your employer. The industry norm may not be your company's, and it's better to be safe than sorry.